Mark Harper: Before I ask the Minister my question, may I point out that my hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary visited RAF Lyneham last Friday, and that he would like to place on record how impressed he was with the sensitivity and professionalism of all those who deal with the repatriation of our fallen service personnel.
	The latest information in the ministerial statement made at the end of March by the Minister's colleague the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), was that there were still 91 military inquests outstanding, 25 of which dated from before May 2006. It sounds as if there has been a little progress since then, but progress in dealing with the backlog has been painfully slow. Given that Ministers expect the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner to transfer jurisdiction to the next of kin's local coroner wherever possible, how confident is the Minister that all coroners will have the expertise to deal adequately with military inquests—and if that is the right solution, why on earth was it not put in place four years ago, so that we could avoid the delays and anguish suffered by bereaved families?

Ben Wallace: There has been some exploration of the possibility of working with the French in a joint venture on the two super-carriers. It is probably welcome that we should share costs by joint working on design and other aspects, but will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any option that includes building the ship in French yards, and guarantee that our carriers will be built entirely and wholly in British yards?

David Hamilton: Does the Minister understand that small and medium-sized enterprises have grave concerns about the aircraft carrier. They put the delay down to the involvement of the French. Can he allay their fears?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the significant contribution that private military and security companies make, particularly in Iraq, where they are ever-present. Given the nature of the conflict in Iraq, even the green zone could be considered part of the battle space and those companies are there in significant numbers, and therein lies the answer to his second question. That was not the case in 2002, but since then, the proliferation of private military and security companies—not contracted by this Government, I should say, but by many other Governments—into the battle space where we deploy in coalition has greatly complicated the circumstances. We are presently looking at the nature of any regulation that we might need to bring in, which was anticipated in the Green Paper and subsequent discussion. It is a complex issue, so when we legislate, we will need to get it right. Consideration is going on across the relevant Departments at the moment.

Des Browne: I will have to write to my hon. Friend to answer that. I am sorry that my brief does have that specific information. I know that a significant number of other Government Departments have contracts with private military security companies, which were detailed in another answer to the hon. Member for Lewes on 20 March. The detail is set out there if anyone wants to look at it. The contracts went substantially to a firm called ArmorGroup, of which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is the non-executive chairman.

Des Browne: Our current plans are to have 100 Mastiffs in theatre in Iraq by the end of the summer. They will be complemented by 100 Bulldogs and, if I remember correctly—I am relying on memory—160 Vector or advanced protection vehicles. Whether we meet that target precisely will depend on a number of factors. I say that because, in recent months, in order to advance our ability to be able to get protected vehicles into theatre, we have gone for a solution that allows those vehicles to go into theatre and for those who use them to tell us how the next batch can be improved. I ask the House not to hold me to any specific day, but we have been able to meet the challenge in this procurement that the procurement process has not been able to meet before. Indeed, when I was in Iraq a couple of days ago, I was privileged to be shown the presently deployed vehicles by the people who use them and I can say that they were singing their praises highly.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is evidence to suggest that armaments, and in particular improvised explosive devices, are being deployed against our troops in southern Iraq that have their provenance in Iran. That is why we have deployed our forces along the border in Maysan. During my recent visit to Iraq, I spoke to those who were deployed in that area. I commend them on the work that they are doing and the intelligence that they are able to build up in that area. That is one of the reasons we conduct the boarding operations along the Shatt al-Arab waterway that we have already discussed today.
	Over and above that, we seek through the Iraqi Government and their engagement with the Iranian Government to send the Iranians the strong message that, apart from anything else, it is not in their interests to have a destabilised southern part of Iraq. We seek every other opportunity that we have, including the increasing opportunities that we now seem to have, to speak to the Iranians and get the message across to them.

Des Browne: The fact of the matter is that Moqtada al-Sadr is, in terms of Iraq, both. He is a man who plays a significant political role—there is no question about that. It is not for me to define who is a political figure and who is not, and he undoubtedly plays a significant political role. It is also clear that elements of Mahdi army behave as if they were insurgents, or indeed terrorists. There is no doubt about that, either. What is not entirely clear, however, is which parts of the Mahdi army are under his control and which are not. In the south of Iraq, where we have forces deployed, a competition is going on—including, among others, the militia of the Mahdi army—for influence. That fact that we stand between them and the effect that they could have on the people of that part of Iraq, especially the city of Basra, causes them to attack us so frequently. That is why we treat them as we do, and we have had significant successes over the past month or so in dealing with them in that community That is not to say, however, that they are not still a significant bad presence.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the operation. Clearly, we have a number of military medical personnel, as I mentioned in answer to previous questions. The increase in the number of nurses and other clinicians to 39 is significant. Our partnership with the NHS is also important. I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to Selly Oak hospital and those from the NHS who have been caring for our military personnel, who have received outstanding, world-class treatment and operations. Again, it is not just about meeting clinical needs, but about providing welfare and psychiatric support, as well as excellent family accommodation, which has been developed with the help of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, whom I also thank. A range of support services is provided for our personnel at Selly Oak.

Angela Eagle: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely, the decision by Burton's Foods to cease production of biscuits at its Moreton site, with the loss of 660 full-time jobs.
	Burton's is currently the largest private-sector employer in my constituency. It has provided a reliable source of employment for generations of my constituents living in Moreton and Leasowe. It is not uncommon for entire families to work at the plant. Many employees have given decades of unbroken service to the company. Last Friday, the employees were taken without warning into the canteen, where the announcement of this intended closure was made. They were then sent home.
	Wirral metropolitan borough council and I had been in dialogue with the company some months ago about its review of production and had been promised by the company that it would keep us in touch with the review. That promise was not kept. The first I knew of this devastating closure decision was when I received phone calls from shocked and distressed employees.
	In 2001, Burton's Foods was the recipient of £3 million of regional selective assistance from the Government and £1 million of rate rebates from the local authority to help to finance an expansion of production at the site and safeguard employment in the area. As part of that deal, the work force accepted a three-year pay freeze. Burton's Foods' obligations under those agreements ran out in March of this year.
	To say that people feel angry and betrayed understates the strength of feeling in Moreton and Leasowe today. Despite the company's behaviour, however, Wirral council, the trade unions and I stand ready to assist in any way that we can and urge the company to reverse this decision and work with us to go forward in a more positive way. I believe that it owes it to a long-standing and loyal work force to find another way through these difficulties.
	I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further in the House.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He will be aware of the successful scheme in Wales introduced by the Welsh Assembly Government, but can he confirm that this Bill will go far enough to enable cross-border arrangements between the Westminster Government and the devolved Administrations?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Bill contains enabling powers that would facilitate such cross-border travel, if agreement is reached between the Westminster Government and, in the case that she suggests, the Welsh Assembly Government—or, indeed, the Scottish Executive. Speaking candidly, those are not discussions for today but ones that will take place in due course. I should also point out that that is without prejudice to the ability of local authorities in areas adjacent to the border to go beyond the statutory provision and ensure that their schemes allow for exactly the kind of cross-border travel of which she speaks.

Douglas Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous tribute to the step forward that the Bill represents. Of course further discussions will be taken forward with the devolved Administrations—in his case with the Welsh Assembly Government, but also with the Scottish Executive. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which my hon. Friend speaks, I wish to add a couple of caveats about the case for cross-border travel. First, the level of provision of concessionary travel varies across the United Kingdom and it would be necessary for the discussions to reflect that. Secondly, it is a point of principle for those of us who advocated devolution before the establishment of the Assembly and the Parliament that such decisions should involve the devolved Administrations. Therefore it is appropriate that the discussions should be without prejudice to their views.

David Hamilton: Further to the points that have been made, there are some 2 millions Scots or descendants of Scots living in England—

David Hamilton: Indeed. The English are also coming to Scotland in their droves, so that would work well the other way. Cross-border travel would allow the Scots to go not only to Berwick and Carlisle but to London.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically astute observations. I am not sure that the principal criticism directed at this Government is that not enough Scots are reaching London. It is certainly the case that a high proportion of English-born citizens now live in Scotland and vice versa. It was with such considerations in mind that when the options were put to me by officials I was keen to ensure that we took this opportunity to ensure future-proofing of the Bill without prejudice to any discussions on the issue. That is why I welcome the fact that the enabling powers are included in the Bill.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Whatever sensible conclusions my right hon. Friend reaches, will he ensure that it is widely publicised that the decisions have been made by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and have not been taken only at local authority level?

Andrew MacKay: The Secretary of State is being extremely graceful and generous in giving way, so I shall be brief. I very much support the Bill, but I have a concern, which is shared by the highways and transport authority of Bracknell Forest borough council. By April next year, the authority will have to produce a uniform national pass for concessionary bus fares. It wants to use smart cards, which will be efficient and reduce fraud, but as it will be quite some time before the Department for Transport makes a decision it could be too late to set up a smart card system. What hope can the right hon. Gentleman give Bracknell Forest borough council?

Douglas Alexander: The hope I can offer the council is that a great deal of work is under way in my Department on that issue. I do not preclude the possibility that there could be the smart ticketing of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, not least given its real benefits, for example in avoiding fraud. There is an important distinction to be drawn between the London freedom pass and the possible development of smart ticketing in authorities that have not previously used it. We are not convinced of the case for an immediate change in the widely distributed freedom pass so we are looking at the option of stickering freedom passes in London. We are working closely with local authorities outside London on a procurement framework that would facilitate local authorities, such as the right hon. Gentleman's, setting up smart card systems according to the appropriate time scale. We have not yet reached a definitive decision on that matter. Clearly, given the number of pensioners relying on the cards and the scale of the procurement involved, we want to have the necessary assurances in place before reaching a decision, but I can assure him that we are addressing the matter with great speed.

Douglas Alexander: I have just made it clear that, at this stage, we do not anticipate changes to the concessionary scheme that is available nationally on coach travel. I am keen to emphasise to my hon. Friend that the statutory framework that we are putting in place should best be thought of as a floor rather than as a ceiling; it is without prejudice to the choices made by local authorities and local communities across England about what best suits their needs, although obviously the budgetary constraints of each authority will apply. In that sense, we are seeking not to prescribe the services that can be made available, but to ensure that individuals who live close to local authority boundaries can obtain a standard of service that allows them to travel across those boundaries.

Martin Linton: I welcome the Bill, but am I right in interpreting my right hon. Friend's comments as an assurance that he would resist any amendments to it, such as those proposed in the Lords, that would water down or dilute the freedom pass in London? That pass covers the tube, the Docklands light railway and buses.

Douglas Alexander: I am aware that this is an issue of some debate. I re-emphasise the point I made a few moments ago: I do not anticipate changes to the freedom pass as a result of the Bill. A huge number of freedom passes are available across the capital, so we will need to take steps to ensure that they can be recognised and used outside the capital for the first time. That is why we are examining the practical issue of stickering the passes. We do not think it would be wise to have a wholesale turnaround of the freedom passes in 2008. The framework that has been negotiated for freedom passes is rightfully a matter for those in London, as opposed to it being one that is determined by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Peter Atkinson: The Secretary of State was talking about coach travel. Will he define coach travel, because some of my constituents have no bus service save long-distance coaches? Will those people travel for half-price or free?

Douglas Alexander: I should be happy for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, who is responsible for buses, to clarify in her winding-up speech the specific definition of coaches that we use—we can see the enthusiasm with which she has embraced that particular responsibility. The substantive point is that the Bill will not alter the definition of what is deemed coach travel and what is deemed bus travel. I am happy for my hon. Friend to detail the statutory basis on which the concessionary scheme for coaches is provided in her winding-up speech. As I say, the Bill will not affect the existing half-price concessionary scheme on coach travel, which was introduced back in 2003. The Bill also retains powers to increase the scope of concessions in future.

Kevan Jones: I am glad that my right hon. Friend gave way; I thought that it might be personal. I welcome the Bill, and it will be very welcome in my constituency of North Durham, but the problem that we have had in North Durham over the past few months, and in the lead-up to the introduction of the Bill, is that Go Northern has been stripping out routes. That means that large parts of my constituency, and other constituencies across County Durham, have no access to a bus, so the Bill will not be any good to most of those rural communities. What powers can he give Durham county council, so that it can ensure that the Go-Ahead group, and other operators that completely ignore social need and concentrate just on profit, can be brought to book?

Susan Kramer: I thank the Secretary of State very much. Is he aware that Transport for London has been using the freedom pass and the reserve scheme, which is unique to London, to cost-shunt on to local councils, particularly with respect to the new rail services that have come on line? Will he consider giving London the same protections that he described to his colleague, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer)—namely an appeals process, in which appeals could be made either to the Department for Transport or to an independent arbiter? That would be better than allowing the operator to make whatever charges it pleased.

Douglas Alexander: I know that that is a matter of dispute between the boroughs and TFL. If there were agreement between TFL and the boroughs on the way forward, given the statutory assurances that are in place, an appeals process could be considered, but my understanding is that there continues to be disagreement, and I am not convinced that, because of that disagreement, we should remove the guarantee of a minimum standard of service provided across the capital.
	The Bill retains powers to increase the scope of the concession in the future, potentially to other categories of people, to other modes of transport and to different timings. I would like to address the issue of funding, which has already been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. All the measures mean that from April 2008 the Government will be providing around £1 billion a year to fund concessionary travel—a significant sum of money in anyone's book. Indeed, overall Government funding for buses now amounts to over £2.5 billion a year, and that is up from £1 billion a year in 1997. The framework of the Bill will allow a workable scheme to be in place by next year, to ensure as smooth a transition as possible from the current arrangements. Of course, it is in all our interests to ensure that local authorities are properly funded so that they can provide the statutory concession.

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous in giving way, and I am keen to make a little more progress.
	Our overriding principle is that the extra £250 million of funding should be directed to where the extra costs will fall, to ensure that we recognise passenger hotspots as far as we can. We are looking carefully at a number of funding options together with the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government. We are discussing the options in detail with our concessionary fares working groups, which consist of representatives from all tiers of local government. We have met with Nexus, London councils, Transport for London and other key stakeholders. We hope to have taken a decision on the preferred funding route by the summer, and we intend to consult widely on our preferred formula for distribution.
	We recognise the importance of ensuring that operators receive fair payment for carrying concessionary passengers. Reimbursement will continue to be offered on a "no better off, no worse off" basis, so no operator should be disadvantaged. Operators can appeal if they believe that reimbursement is too low. We also want the power to simplify the administration of concessionary fares. There is a wide variety of concessionary travel schemes across the country, and 291 separate travel concession authorities, which means that some bus operators have to negotiate with many different authorities each year. There is therefore provision in the Bill to transfer reimbursement and administration powers to higher-tier local authorities or to the Secretary of State. That could improve efficiency and save money, but any such change would be subject to extensive consultation and indeed parliamentary scrutiny. It would not be made until after April 2008, so local authorities have plenty of time to prepare for it. We continue to work closely with local government, the bus industry and, of course, with groups representing older and disabled people. Concessionary travel is a devolved issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, but we want it to be possible in future for concessionaires—

Douglas Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that that issue is exactly why we have undertaken such detailed work, not just with local authorities but with bus operators and others, to ensure that we devise a mechanism and formula that recognise that resources should be allocated where costs fall. We are looking at a number of different options to make sure that we anticipate where bus usage is likely to be heaviest as a consequence of the national concession.
	It is important to understand the measures in the Bill within the broader context of the Government's strategy for growing bus patronage, which is a matter of some debate. In contrast to the Tory Government, we have put buses at the centre of our transport strategy. As I have already said, patronage steadily declined in the 1980s and early 1990s, but backed, yes, by record increases in funding, bus use under this Government has increased by 7.3 per cent. since 2000-01, and has gone up six years in a row. Today, there are about 23,000 more buses and coaches registered than in 1997, and the fleet is younger and more accessible for disabled people and other passengers. Although 4 billion bus journeys were taken in England in 2006, we want that figure to continue to rise. The bus review that we undertook last year, "Putting Passengers First", showed that too many local authorities and bus operators are still failing to work in partnership to the detriment of services in many towns and cities.
	Our ambition is to maximise the full potential of every bus in every part of the country. We have therefore mapped out a new structure for buses under "Putting Passengers First", in which local authorities provide effective priority schemes, better traffic management and an infrastructure that allows buses to thrive. We want operators to focus on improving services, making sure that they are clean, safe, convenient, accessible and, indeed, comfortable for passengers. We will give traffic commissioners increased powers to improve performance by holding operators and authorities to account for poor performance. We want to make it easier for both groups to arrange frequency of services, timetables and fares through stronger partnership working. We have already achieved tremendous results in areas where operators and authorities work closely together, not simply in London but in Cambridge, Brighton and York, for example, and a rise in patronage, too, in more rural areas such as East Sussex and Kent. We want that success to be replicated in other cities and regions to help to tackle social exclusion and congestion and to support the measures in the Bill.
	We have established a strong foundation for a more successful bus industry in recent years. We have introduced a package of measures for the bus sector, of which the Bill is a fundamental. This is unequivocally a Labour Bill. This is a Labour Government delivering for some of the most vulnerable in society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Chris Grayling: May I welcome the Secretary of State back to the House? He is one Scot, I suspect, who is extremely pleased to be back in London. Fortunately, the issue before the House is relatively uncontroversial, and there are certainly no complicated votes at the end of the evening.
	May I begin by giving the Bill a warm welcome? Indeed, I could hardly do otherwise. The Secretary of State rightly said that it is a Labour Bill, because it is a Labour Government, but it is a Bill, too, that commands support across the House. When I was first elected in 2001, one of my first actions was to hold an Adjournment debate on concessionary fares for pensioners because of an anomaly in my constituency facing many of the pensioners whom I represent. In Worcester Park, a small centre in London that is divided between the London boroughs of Sutton and Kingston and the borough of Epsom and Ewell in Surrey, the boundary literally divided the community on the provision of bus passes. Pensioners living in London enjoyed the benefit of the freedom pass; those living in my constituency did not. Believe me, they let me know regularly how annoyed they were about that. It was not just. I called for change then, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State is leading an initiative to make a genuine change. There was an anomaly and that is to change. I am delighted that the Government's move to extend the existing schemes nationally makes the likelihood of local anomalies in future much smaller.
	We have always said that where the Government get things right, we will back them, and on the Bill, we think they have got things right. However, the Secretary of State cannot resist lobbing in a few jibes about buses. He makes the old comments about the decline in bus patronage post-1985. I remind him that the decline in bus patronage was greater pre-1985 than it has been post-1985. I also recognise that there are problems with the current system. He paints a rosy picture of what has happened under the present Government. A few weeks ago I went to Sefton, where people are losing their bus services and losing the means of their journey to work, because of failings in the current system.
	There are still problems to be addressed in our bus system. If the Government get things right, we will support them, but they do not have a particularly good track record. The last great initiative from the Government on bus reform, quality contracts, has not been an unbridled success. The country is not full of quality contracts changing the face of our bus industry, so I wait with some trepidation to see what happens as a result of these reforms but, as I always say, if the Government introduce positive reforms and positive changes, we will consider them constructively.

Kevan Jones: Are not the problems that the hon. Gentleman saw on his visit to Sefton a result of the fact that the last Tory Government deregulated the buses, which led to the stupid idea of competition which, in most areas, has ended up with monopolies? He referred earlier to the fact that bus patronage in London has increased. That was the only area that was left regulated.

Chris Grayling: I am happy to consider the bus industry today and the future of public transport provision. When the Government get things wrong, as they frequently do, we will hold them to account. When they get things right, as with the Bill, we will support them in doing so.
	The introduction of a national scheme for concessionary bus fares for the old and disabled will be welcomed by people all around England. The extension of the scheme that the Government introduced two years ago in a blaze of glory ahead of the general election was essential. The first effort to extend free bus passes nationwide proved to be rather more limited than the headlines suggested, with travel limited to borough boundaries, which was not much use to people whose local shops, local hospital or the services that they needed to access were just across a borough boundary. I hope the Bill will remove such anomalies for the future.
	As ever, the devil is in the detail. Although the Bill has cross-party support, there are important points that have been raised on both sides of the House as to exactly how it will be put into practice and what the consequences will be. There are still areas of concern that need to be addressed by the Minister who is to wind up the debate. On funding, an issue raised by the Secretary of State, there are still aspects of the Government's plans that remain unclear.
	The Under-Secretary has informed us on a number of occasions that from April 2008 the Government will be providing around £1 billion a year in total to fund concessionary travel. When she replies, may we have a little more explanation of how that is made up? The £350 million that was made available for local concessionary travel in 2006 has been topped up by £250 million as part of this package, making a total of £600 million today, but where does the extra £400 million come from and how will it be delivered? If the detailed work is being done now on the way in which the funding will be allocated, how can Ministers be sure that the £250 million figure is sufficient to meet all of the needs? Can they provide assurances that it will be enough to cover the costs of the scheme? The experience under the fares scheme introduced in April last year is that they did not get it right the first time round.
	We have already heard from some hon. Members how the 2006 scheme has affected their areas, but I will pick up on a couple of examples. During the recent Government consultation on the 2007-08 local government finance settlement, the Government received representations from 23 local authorities and local authority groups on the amount of funding for concessionary fares being insufficient to meet the costs of the scheme. We heard about the major issue in the north-east from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). The introduction of the scheme cost Tyne and Wear £5.4 million in the last financial year. It had to make £3.4 million-worth of cuts because the Government had underestimated the take-up of the scheme. There was a 24 per cent. rise in child concessionary fares, a 50 per cent. rise in the cost of teen travel tickets for 16 to 18-year-olds in further education, and the scrapping of 11 subsidised bus routes providing services to areas that benefited from no other forms of public transport.
	There is a similar situation at the other end of the country. In Christchurch, roughly 6 per cent. of the population is over the age of 60, the highest percentage of any local authority area in England or Wales. With the introduction of the 2006 local concessionary scheme, the Government increased the council's grant figure by £237,000, while its total budget for concessionary fares was £395,000, including £20,000 of its own money. However, the take-up was even greater than anticipated, and 69 per cent. of those eligible have been issued with a pass. The £395,000 budget has been overspent by almost 100 per cent., equivalent to an 11 per cent. increase in the borough's 2006-07 council tax. There is no point in giving our pensioners free bus travel if they just have to pay the bills through their council tax instead. It is not just local authorities that have had problems with the funding of the local concessionary scheme. Sixty appeals have been lodged with the Department for Transport by bus companies since the start of the local concessionary scheme, 45 of which remain unresolved.
	It is essential that the Government not only clarify exactly how much is being spent, how it will be broken down and how and where it will be allocated, but confirm and prove that they have sufficiently allowed for take-up in excess of expectation.
	How the money is allocated will be just as important as how much there will be. The Government have used the normal local authority grant to support the 2006 scheme of local concessionary bus fares. The local authority in which a concessionary journey begins will have to compensate the bus operator. However, if the Government reimburse local authorities according to their resident over-60 population, areas with large numbers of elderly visitors will end up with a large financial burden for which they will not be adequately compensated. Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will address that when she replies, because it is a particular problem for holiday resorts that attract a large number of elderly visitors. If towns such as Brighton, Cleethorpes or Poole have a disproportionate number of elderly visitors, inevitably they will end up footing the bill for a much higher level of bus usage than will have been provided for under the grant that they receive. How do Ministers plan to address that issue?
	Let me touch on a number of issues related to the scope of the scheme. The Secretary of State will be aware of the pressure coming from a variety of sources to provide concessionary fares on other transport systems as well, such as trains and ferries. I am particularly aware of the representations being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about his constituents. I understand the problems that the Government would face in funding such an extended scheme, but when the Under-Secretary replies will she brief the House about the work that was done on the scope of the scheme and what assessments were carried out on the viability and costs of extending it to cover other local transport systems, such as trams and ferry links?
	In particular, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have carried out of the cost of extending the scheme to cover community transport? Ministers will be aware of the valuable work done by our community transport sector. An underlying principle behind the Bill must be to help tackle social exclusion, but the reality is that some of the most socially excluded in the country are those who, for whatever reason, are unable to use public transport and for whom innovative community transport schemes are their only lifeline to the wider world. The truth is that the Government have decided to exclude community transport from the scheme. Will the Minister explain her approach to that issue?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that in some areas of the country, particularly in our rural areas, community transport schemes—we have some tremendous community transport operations and great work is done by the social enterprise sector—are the only transport service. The Government must support them.
	The Secretary of State addressed the cross-border issues to some degree, but I am not entirely certain that he is confident that he will deliver a solution. Wales and Scotland have concessionary bus schemes, and England will have one from 2008. I hope that the Minister can assure us that between now and then as much as possible will be done to ensure mutual recognition of the schemes across borders. For those who live in the border areas, whose local bus service can begin on the other side of the border from where they live, that mutual recognition is vital, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) in relation to his constituency. There is a risk that the new scheme will not help. If we get things wrong and if Ministers do not take the right decisions and cannot reach the right agreements with the devolved Administrations, there is a danger that people in those areas could be losers. Many local authorities have arrangements to help to fund concessionary cross-border travel, but if their contributions are squeezed by a national scheme that is not funded to work most effectively with those authorities, they might impose cutbacks on that help. Certain services have already been cut as a result of the previous scheme, and I would not want cross-border services to be cut because the funding package was not right.
	May I also press the Minister on the subject of start times? At present, the scheme applies only to travel after 9.30 am. Obviously, I appreciate that it could not possibly be extended across peak times, but the start times for other services are an issue. For example, the first appointment at most hospitals is 9 o'clock. The pensioners' parliament has alerted my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to the problems that the start time for the scheme will cause some pensioners who have early medical appointments. Will the Minister consider such people? What work have the Government done to assess that dimension and the relationship between pensioners' entitlement to free travel and start times in the health service?
	On the issue of technology, the Welsh and Scottish schemes already use smartcard technology. The Minister is clearly working on the issue, but there are still big doubts about whether smartcards will be available at the start of the scheme in England. Clearly, that poses a number of problems. I have already explained why there are question marks over how funding will be handled and whether it will be possible to get it right through the grants system. Smartcard technology would help to create a smoother funding mechanism by making it possible to fund directly the number of journeys made in the areas where they were made rather than having to use block grants made on an assessment of population. That is a more attractive way of distributing future funding. However, even if it is not immediately possible to do that, it is logical to do as much as we can to provide for the use of smartcard technology in future. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and his account of the work of his local authority.
	Given the time frame, would not it make sense for the passes that are handed out to be enabled with ITSO technology so that, even if it is not possible to introduce a smartcard scheme up front, when the technology is ready to come on stream six, 12 or 18 months later, the Government will not ask local authorities to withdraw all the passes and replace them with a new generation of smartcards? Will the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary consider that approach?
	Let us consider technology and the prevention of fraud. Little can be done immediately if a lost or stolen photo card is used fraudulently. However, under a smartcard system, such as the oyster card system in London, a lost or stolen card can be cancelled to prevent fraudulent use and any credit on the card can be reissued to a replacement card so that the rightful owner does not lose out. Given that electronic ticketing systems may not be available in the first months or years of the scheme's operation, what plans do the Government have to help prevent fraudulent abuse? Fraud is especially relevant, given the funding pressures on some local authorities. There simply does not seem to be the room for manoeuvre for local authorities to bear the cost of significant fraud.
	It is worth briefly referring to the impact of the proposals on London. The Secretary of State referred to the freedom pass, which has existed for 23 years and is funded and run by the London boroughs. It is the most generous concessionary fares scheme in the country, giving older and disabled Londoners free use of the capital's trains, tubes, trams and buses.
	The introduction of a national scheme could cause problems for London. The extension of concessionary fares nationwide means that London will be in danger of losing out from tourism. It is a major tourist centre, which attracts many retired visitors from all parts of the country, who will be entitled to free bus travel in London. Under a national scheme, journeys taken by those visitors will have to be underwritten by London councils as part of the overall cost of concessionary fares in London. I hope that the Department will consider that.
	I sensed from the Secretary of State's remarks that he recognised the potential problem of technology. London already has an established electronic ticketing system—the oyster card. It would be daft to have systems around the country that are not technologically interoperable. It would be valuable if the Under-Secretary could give some idea of the steps that are being taken to ensure genuine interoperability between the smartcards that are in use throughout the country, and especially between the scheme in London and those that will be introduced outside London.
	The debate today essentially comes down to dealing with unintended consequences of a well-meaning Bill, of which all parties generally approve. That is a task especially for the Committee. We must ensure that the measure does not cause problems, which no one has previously envisaged, for local authorities.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. If we are to have any chance of providing genuine alternatives to the car or achieving a balanced system, we must ensure that public transport offers as much as possible. It must provide a genuine alternative to people who may choose to leave their cars at home or might not otherwise travel because they have no means of doing so.
	Getting public transport right must be priority for any Government, whatever their political persuasion, now and in future. My colleagues and I fully support the principle of national concessionary fares, but we shall have to examine the details carefully in Committee to ensure that, when put into practice, the scheme does what it is supposed to do. We need to be sure that it does not have a negative effect on the most excluded from society, who cannot or do not have access to public transport.
	It is a good Bill with a good set of intentions and will provide a well deserved additional pillar of support for pensioners who have contributed so much to Britain during their working lives. All too often, however, the Government have started with good intentions and then failed to deliver, so the Committee needs to ensure that that does not happen this time.

David Clelland: When the scheme was introduced in 2006—or, at least when it was announced by the Chancellor in 2005—it was widely welcomed, not least in Tyne and Wear because it returned us to a position that we were in 30 years ago. The Labour Tyne and Wear authority introduced a free travel scheme around the county 30 years ago, which had to be abandoned because of the Conservative party policy of introducing charges. I have to say that I resisted it at the time, because I felt that if charges were introduced, they would inevitably be increased, which is precisely what happened.
	The return to free fares was widely welcomed—until the sting in the tail was discovered. The funding allocated to the scheme used the standard local authority funding formula, which meant that it was tied to population, not to bus usage. In Tyne and Wear, of course, there is a high take-up of public transport, so we ended up with a shortfall of funding. In 2006-07, £5.4 million of cuts in bus services had to be made—cuts to vulnerable people and to young people, as the teen travel scheme of subsidised travel for students had to be severely cut back. Furthermore, £2 million had to be taken from the reserves, adding up in total to an actual cut of £7.4 million last year for one of the poorest regions in the country.
	This year, of course, the scheme continues under the same formula and has to be subsidised yet again by Tyne and Wear council tax payers. Further subsidies will have to be found, so by the time we get to the national scheme next year, it will have cost Tyne and Wear £10 million to run the free travel scheme over the two-year period.

Paul Truswell: My hon. Friend is detailing one problem with the current use of the revenue support grant, but are there not two further ones? It also depends on the money being passported from districts through to passenger transport authorities in areas such as my hon. Friend's and mine, while it does nothing to help when some authorities—I understand including the Isles of Scilly—get some cash under the system even though they do not have any buses.

David Clelland: My hon. Friend raises a couple of points that I shall come back to later. There are several anomalies in the distribution of this money and nowhere else in the country has suffered to the extent of Tyne and Wear. Meanwhile, because of the method of distribution, some authorities with lower public transport usage than Tyne and Wear will once more gain from the funding formula as my hon. Friend has just pointed out. Indeed, funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be found from this cache of money despite the fact that they already have fully funded schemes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Scilly Isles will receive a share, even though they do not have any bus services at all. The distribution of this money is therefore a nonsense and I hope that Ministers will accept that it has to be corrected.
	Ministers could correct the problem if they devised a system whereby funding went directly to the concessionary travel authorities through a specific grant. We could have a ring-fenced grant to transport authorities, with 75 per cent. allocated for the running of the scheme and 25 per cent. held back in a contingency to provide additional resources where the formula does not fully reflect the cost of concessionary journeys in any particular area. That would iron out many of the anomalies that we face today.
	The opportunity must also be taken to correct through the Bill the funding anomalies relating to Tyne and Wear, which I cannot stress too strongly. It is grossly unfair that Tyne and Wear should be put in the position in which it finds itself, so I ask the Minister to give an assurance in her wind-up speech that the acknowledged underfunding of Tyne and Wear will be addressed and that revised arrangements will be made for the distribution of funding in future. If she cannot give that assurance, will she then acknowledge that the introduction of the national scheme will leave Tyne and Wear at a severe disadvantage; that cuts in services and concessions to young people will have to continue; that the area will be denied the level playing field it needs when the scheme begins in 2008; and that we shall also be denied the Secretary of State's comment earlier that this should be looked at as a floor rather than a ceiling, which will mean little to Tyne and Wear unless the funding formula is corrected?

David Clelland: Indeed I have. In fact, among the early complaints that we received from elderly people about the scheme was that, although they welcome the idea of returning to free fares, they did not want them at the cost of student concessions and other bus services, which is how the increase was paid for. We still receive those complaints, which is why the issue needs to be ironed out. Some elderly people were upset that that was the outcome of this otherwise welcome scheme.
	What measures do Ministers propose to deal with the problem of bus companies exploiting concessionary fares to their advantage?

David Clelland: Yes, indeed. In fact, some of the services that were cut were to outlying areas, to which it is not profitable enough for bus companies to run services. Certain subsidised services that were run by the passenger transport authority have therefore been cut back, in order to pay for the concessionary fares scheme. People in areas such as those to which my hon. Friend referred have suffered as a result.

David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman refers to a point that will come up in other debates and in other Bills, although I acknowledge that the north-east of England is unfunded so far as transport provision generally is concerned. That is something that some of us will be taking up tomorrow with the Minister responsible for roads.
	The exploitation of the system by bus companies also needs to be addressed, if the scheme and the Government's ambition to increase public transport usage are to be successful. With the introduction of the scheme, surely it is even more important that we move to a system of local franchising of bus services and bus routes. Unless public transport is accessible, affordable, comfortable and convenient, we will never get motorists to abandon their cars, and buses will increasingly become transport for concessionaires and no one else, with taxpayers providing the profits of the bus companies.
	There is a further problem that will arise from the Bill as currently drafted and which needs to be addressed, namely the proposal that transport authorities cover the cost of all concessionary journeys that start in their areas, including those of non-residents. That will impose an additional burden on areas such as Tyne and Wear, to which huge numbers of people come to visit the Metro centre, Newcastle city centre, and the cultural and leisure attractions of Tyneside. All those people coming into the area and beginning a bus journey there will create a burden that will fall upon the Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority, on top of the problems from which it already suffers. It is essential that we should have a more flexible funding system that can take care of all those extra burdens.

Kevan Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, many of my constituents travel over the border from Chester-le-Street into Gateshead and the Tyne and Wear conurbation not only to work, but to visit the large number of well managed attractions on Tyneside. Does he agree that one proposal that we perhaps need to consider in the north-east is a passenger transport authority that covers not only Tyne and Wear, but the region as a whole, and which could address some of the broader issues to which he has referred?

Paul Rowen: I thank the Minister and, through her, the Secretary of State, for the help and information provided in the lead-up to the Bill. The Bill has been, and will be, welcomed on both sides of the House. Bus travel is already the most widely used form of public transport, and the earlier provision of free local bus travel has already seen bus patronage, after a long period of decline, rising—for once, not just in London.
	Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of the concessionary bus fares scheme to make it a genuinely national scheme. The provision of free bus use for the elderly and disabled increases social mobility and inclusion. However, as my noble Friends did in the other place, we shall seek to extend and improve the nature of the concession in Committee. During Second Reading, I hope that I and other Members will raise concerns, which I hope that the Minister will address.
	The concessionary bus fares scheme is a national scheme administered locally, and we welcome that. On Second Reading in another place, however, the noble Lord Davies of Oldham stated that, if the scheme were administered nationally, according to a National Audit Office report, annual savings of £12 million would result. I hope that the Minister will indicate the estimated additional cost of administering the scheme for local authorities. How much of the extra £250 million allocated has been set aside for that? What are the estimated start-up costs? I have been told estimates of between £35 million and £75 million, depending on how the scheme is set up. How will those costs be met, and by whom?
	The Government have also stated their desire to have a national bus pass. The official Opposition spokesman referred to the smartcard. It will be impossible for the smartcard scheme to be available next year, but it is important that the Minister should set out the framework in which she expects smartcards to be introduced. Various schemes operate at present, not least the Oyster card in London. We need to examine how that transition will be managed. I agree that the new scheme and the new cards should be ITSO-compliant. But what is the cost of introducing those cards, and who is going to meet it? I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about issuing the cards next year, even though they will not be widely usable on buses. We need to ensure that we do not introduce a scheme next year, and then in following years introduce another new scheme with additional costs. Will the Minister give some detail in her wind-up about how the transition scheme will be managed?
	Funding is the issue that will exercise most Members; it has been the major focus of the remarks and interventions made so far. The current scheme has been introduced via the formula grant—a blunderbuss instrument that deals with population and demographics but takes no account of bus use. The London boroughs, for example, have estimated that the actual cost of the scheme for London was £100 million, but they received only £53 million through the formula grant, the balance having been met through increases in council tax or cuts in other services. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) spoke of the experience in Tyne and Wear, where cuts in other services were necessary to pay for the scheme.
	We must ensure—other Members will no doubt press this—that there is reimbursement for the costs of any scheme. It has been said that the reimbursement will come from journeys within a local authority, but how will that work? I recently asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were travelling to various tourist destinations. Other Members have mentioned some of them—places such as Blackpool, Cleethorpes, Scarborough, London and Manchester. Although the Department was able to give those figures, no information was available about the number of over-60s or the number of disabled people who were using buses in those areas.
	It is important for us to deal with actual figures, because, as I have said, the formula grant is a blunderbuss. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet leaders of a cross-party delegation from those tourist destinations—some of the main honeypots—to discuss how the scheme might operate in their areas. While I know that all local authorities have an interest in ensuring that the scheme is fully funded, those areas have particular concerns. If a direct grant is to be administered for actual journeys, how will the Minister ensure that the necessary information is provided? We know how the formula grant operates, but that question is particularly important.
	Other Members have mentioned bus fares, and the definitions of the types of transport and bus services that are eligible. In the past 12 months, bus fares have risen faster than the retail prices index. In Greater Manchester, an appeal to the Secretary of State by bus operators resulted in a substantial increase in bus fares and an extra cost of £3.5 million to the passenger transport authority. With an increasing number of bus journeys funded through the concessionary fare scheme, is there not a temptation for bus operators to increase fares? What mechanism will the Secretary of State introduce to ensure that there is reimbursement for actual costs, and no element of profiteering by bus operators?
	The Secretary of State said that 291 authorities would be involved in negotiations with the major bus operators. While I do not want to see national control of the scheme, I hope that there will be a national framework enabling us to operate to common guidelines when it comes to amounts per mile, so that local authorities' administrative burdens do not increase dramatically because they have to engage with, effectively, just five major bus operators to provide a scheme in their areas.
	As I have said, we need a proper definition of the services that will be eligible. For instance, will the open-topped buses that are used by tourists in Manchester qualify, or will they be exempt? Services have been mentioned which in other areas might be classed as coach services. Again, we need a proper definition of the services that will be included.
	Following our experience of the scheme for appeal, I hope that the Secretary of State will undertake a review of how the scheme has operated in 2006 and ensure that it applies equally, including to the London boroughs. The Liberal Democrats are fully in favour of the freedom pass, but we do not think that it is fair for Transport for London to be able to override the London boroughs in terms of the costs that are charged to them. We believe that the scheme should apply equally to all authorities and not exclude the London boroughs, as it does at present.
	Turning finally to those who will be eligible, I hope that we can have a proper discussion of what we mean by "disabled". We need to have an inclusive definition that ensures that there is maximum usage, including by those suffering from mental illness. Will the Minister also consider extending the provisions of the scheme to those who are disabled and need a companion to accompany them? At present that is not provided for, but it is important.
	The Bill does not extend to other forms of transport. I understand why the Government might be reluctant at this stage to do that, but the Bill does not take account of what happens in areas which do not have a dedicated bus service. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) mentioned the effects on rural services when buses have been lost: people have had to rely on either community transport or taxi voucher schemes. Why cannot the concessionary bus scheme be extended to such areas?
	In my own area recently—in Deeplish—an operator decided to remove a bus and the passenger transport authority put on a taxi service for which people pay 50p. I know from talking to pensioners that they feel that it is iniquitous that they lost the bus service and although they got a free bus pass, they are not able to use it and they are having to pay. There ought to be some recognition of that. We have heard about the fact that the Isles of Scilly do not have any bus services. The ferry service to the Isles of Scilly ought to apply as a concessionary service as that is the means of transport that those on the Isles of Scilly have to use. Also, what will happen where other modes of transport are used but where part of the journey is travelled by bus, such as on some of the Merseyside ferry journeys? Why cannot there be an extension to include those?
	We also heard mention of cross-border issues. The devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already operate more generous schemes than those proposed in the Bill. I hope that those benefits will be extended to neighbouring local authorities, and that we can have a working scheme in place before next April so that people who live near the borders can make full use of the schemes that exist. That should be a prerequisite of the introduction of a genuine multi-modal scheme that covers all modes of transport. The Government have left scope in the Bill to introduce that, and I hope that we receive some suggestion during the progress of the Bill of their intentions in that regard.
	The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first stage in the introduction of a genuinely concessionary transport scheme. We look forward to working on the detail of the Bill in Committee.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill. I know that it is warmly welcomed in North Durham, and in Durham in general, for pensioners and disabled people. The 11 million people nationally who will gain from its provisions will warmly welcome it.
	I am glad that the Government are now concentrating on buses. In the first couple of terms of our Labour Government, we have concentrated too much on capital incentive schemes—such as for light rail—in urban areas. We may have forgotten that the main mode of transport in many rural areas is the bus, and that buses are not a luxury but a necessity in those areas.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill will set up a national scheme and will, hopefully, do away with the various anomalies that the boundaries of counties and local authority areas give rise to. Although we, as politicians, understand those boundaries intimately, it is clear that local people cannot understand why they exist; they do not understand why they cannot catch a bus to wherever they want in the north-east, for example. Therefore, this concentration on bus services in rural areas is welcome. My constituency is a large rural area and, as I said, for most people who do not own a car, access to a bus is not a luxury but a necessity.
	The bus network is long overdue for change and the White Paper is a step in the right direction, in that it has been recognised that a degree of regulation needs to be put back into the system. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) accused me of wanting to go back to the old situation of having to play musical chairs with various bus companies. I do not want that, but I do want local authorities and passenger transport executives at least to have some more power to direct bus companies. It is no good giving people in the county of Durham free bus passes if the local bus service is not there. Go North East has stripped bus routes out of my constituency in the past 12 months, leaving many communities completely isolated and without access to a bus. Although many elderly and disabled people in those communities will welcome access to free and concessionary fares, if there are no buses they cannot access the great benefit delivered to them by a Labour Government.
	I turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen). As we debate this Bill, we need to consider the extension of concessionary fares to other forms of transport in places where bus services are not available or have been withdrawn. In some rural areas, communities use taxi buses or other community transport facilities instead. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred to the great use that is made of post office buses in his large rural constituency. I am not suggesting that we should have a network that delivers people all over the region, but we need one that delivers them to the major hubs, so that they can then get a bus or another form of transport into the major conurbations. I want the Government to look at that issue, please, and to extend concessionary travel to areas that do not have access to bus services because the market has stripped them out.
	I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said about the distribution of funds. Last year, Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority had to withdraw funding for well-established schemes that support teenagers and other disadvantaged groups in order to introduce a concessionary scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made an interesting point when he said that that led to a reduction in the transport footprint on Tyneside. The PTA had to cut services to pay for concessionary fares, thereby leaving the outer parts of west Newcastle, for example, without a bus service, so that had the opposite effect to the one that the Government wanted, which was to expand free transport and access to it. Sadly, when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) had responsibility for such matters, the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge and others fell on deaf ears. Hopefully, the present Secretary of State will look at the case that Tyne and Wear is making more favourably.
	I turn to the question of who has responsibility for concessionary fares—an issue that the Secretary of State mentioned when he opened the debate. The ludicrous situation in Durham is that, although the county council is the transport authority responsible for passenger transport in the county of Durham, responsibility for concessionary fares lies with the district councils. So last year we had the ridiculous situation in which seven district councils were potentially going to introduce individual schemes. Without my intervention, and the very vocal support of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), we would have had a silly situation in which people would have been able to travel freely within Chester-le-Street, but when they went over the border into Durham, City of Durham or Derwentside district councils, they would have had to pay a fare. Fortunately, sense prevailed and we now have a county-wide scheme.
	We also have a scheme that allows people to travel outside the area, into Tyne and Wear, but I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge made about people travelling from Tyneside into County Durham. I am pleased that the Minister announced that the issue will be reviewed, but I urge him to consider the point that it is no good giving the responsibility to district councils. It has to be a county council decision. People must also be told whose responsibility it is, because I can foresee squabbling between district councils. I hope that we will not have to wait too long before the Government abolish the district councils in County Durham, which would do us all a favour and we could have a unitary council for the area.
	The other issue is the national nature of the scheme. According to discussions that I and other County Durham Members have had with bus companies, they have difficulty through-ticketing with other companies. If the scheme is to be successful, people will have to be able to travel seamlessly around the north-east and nationally. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell from the Conservative Front Bench that we need a system that would allow that to happen. We envy the London oyster card and we need a similar system for the north-east or even nationally, so that pensioners could use their card wherever they went. However, the bus companies tell me that that would require some investment in technology.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale touched on another issue that needs careful consideration. In the negotiations on the scheme, the bus companies are playing councils off against each other. There are only five major bus companies now and we are probably not going to get a very good deal for the taxpayers' money that we give them. In many areas, the big companies have monopolies with which others cannot compete, and when we discuss concessionary fares with those companies we need to strike a hard bargain. It is hard to agree with a Liberal Democrat twice in one debate—I am sure that fellow Labour Members will forgive me—but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the bus companies have monopolies and we should insist on some national minimum standards for them. Otherwise they will play councils off against each other.
	The other sector that we need to take into consideration is the smaller bus operators. Some in rural communities provide a fantastic job of providing small, localised services in rural communities. For example, Stanley Taxis in my constituency is a taxi firm, but it also runs a limited bus service. Such operators need to be taken into account when considering concessionary fares, because they are part of the transport network.
	I welcome the concentration on buses and concessionary fares by the Government, because it will help thousands of my constituents. Transport is not only about major capital schemes. Alongside this Bill, we need proper transport planning. The electorate in the north-east rejected a regional assembly, and I respect that decision, but we need some body in the area that can consider regional transport infrastructure and the planning of services. Such a body could deal with rail and bus services across the region. If there is to be a unified concessionary fares system for north-east England, we do not want County Durham to have a better deal than Tyneside, or vice versa, or for the scheme to operate differently in different areas. A single transport authority would be able to make a stronger case when arguing with and lobbying the bus companies—the monopoly suppliers. When I raised that point recently, I was told that it was the responsibility of the North East assembly. I am sorry, but I think the assembly should be abolished rather than be given more powers. However, there is a strong case for a single passenger transport executive or authority to cover the entire area.
	People ask what the Labour Government have done for us. The Bill is yet another example of the Labour Government delivering to 11 million pensioners. It is not surprising that the penny is slowly dropping among Conservative Front Benchers and they do not want to be caught opposing the good, popular ideas that Labour is delivering.

John Randall: Like everybody else, in general I welcome the intentions of the Bill, although as we have heard from previous speakers, some serious issues will have to be looked at, otherwise there is a danger that, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said, those good intentions might not deliver what people expect. Ironically, when people are promised something that sounds wonderful, if it does not turn out as good as they expect, they are more disappointed than if they had never been offered it in the first place. However, I wish the Bill well and hope that any potential problems and anomalies will be sorted out in Committee.
	As my constituency is in the London area, my elderly constituents in Uxbridge have enjoyed the benefit of concessionary fares for some time, through the use of the freedom pass. Bus drivers have told me that over the years the concessionary fare scheme has given birth to a new type of person, who is nicknamed twirlies. They wait at bus stops just before the concessionary period starts, look eagerly at the bus driver and ask, "Are we too early?" Members in other parts of the country can look forward to that important group becoming a feature of the landscape.
	Not all my elderly constituents benefit. As we have already heard, there are problems for people on the edge of a concessionary scheme area, such as my constituents in the area traditionally known as Uxbridge Moor, which stretches from Uxbridge towards Slough in Buckinghamshire. The only bus that serves them, which goes from Uxbridge station to Slough, is not part of the freedom pass system, so they feel extremely aggrieved that they cannot benefit from concessionary bus fares—an example of people who are disappointed because they were promised something that they were not given.
	The London borough of Hillingdon looked at possible ways of dealing with the problem, such as issuing oyster cards, but the cards cannot be used on that bus route. Those constituents feel that they have been given second-class status, simply by dint of where they live, so they are very much looking forward to the Bill. It is not just the elderly who do not benefit. As the oyster card system does not work in the area, young people in my constituency who are entitled to an oyster card for free bus travel in London cannot use the card to get into Uxbridge town centre. However, let us hope that the scheme solves the problem for my elderly constituents. I flag up the problem not just on behalf of my constituents, but because it happens in other border areas. It should be looked at—otherwise, those who live just on the edge of an area could feel that they are unfairly treated.
	I mentioned the young people in my constituency. The Bill is about concessionary bus travel for the elderly, but the Mayor of London introduced free travel for those aged 17 and under. I welcome that scheme, although that could be because I have three children aged 17 and under who use it. However, it has become increasingly obvious that a minority, albeit a small minority, are abusing the scheme and causing a great deal of antisocial behaviour on buses—so much so that some people are calling for that particular concession to be withdrawn. Obviously, I would like the Government to look into that, but I mention it also because many people who would like to use buses are finding that they can be a bit of a no-go area. Elderly people, in particular, can feel threatened by large groups of young people who are severely misbehaving. It may be a small minority who are involved, as I said, but the situation is increasingly becoming a problem.

John Randall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are a great deal of calls for the concession to be withdrawn. I can well understand them and I have some sympathy, although—I may be biased as a parent of children who use the scheme—I feel that it would be unfair to disadvantage those who use buses sensibly. I do not know where the answer lies. Sometimes these things go full cycle and I am sure that I will be told that it was those well-known sons of Beelzebub—the Conservative party—who got rid of conductors on buses and things like that. Perhaps we should look at that. Things do go in cycles, but there is a real, severe problem. Luckily, the scheme that we are talking about offers concessions for the elderly and the disabled, and I think that the concept of hell's grannies still remains firmly in the realms of Monty Python, although perhaps just occasionally, at advice surgeries, some of us wonder about that.
	The real problem will be in the detail of the Bill and the implementation. I look forward to hearing the definitions of "bus" and "coach". The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) mentioned the open-top buses in Manchester. The same thing happens in London. Also, we have services that go through Uxbridge—the 724 and the 727—which are quite long distance, but which I would regard as bus services. I do not know whether they will be included. The 727 connects the various airports, so it might be quite useful to have it involved in the scheme.
	I am not entirely sure that it will be possible to implement smartcards by 1 April next year. I look for reassurance from the Minister on that. One thing that occurred to me was that freedom passes, which are already smartcards, have a separate photo ID card. Those cards are currently issued over the counter at post offices, which, I think we would all agree, most elderly and disabled people find convenient. The national standard being imposed by the Government requires that a photograph be embossed on the card. That means, I think, that applications will have to be sent off and then come back. I think that it would be true to say that that will be much more expensive for users—the administration will certainly be more expensive—and that it might increase the opportunity for fraud. Perhaps this is a further concept in the diminution in the number of services offered by post offices.
	I understand that the existing London scheme, which is based on the oyster card system, is neither compatible nor compliant with the Government's required ITSO standards for the new concessionary travel passes. I assume that all the pass-reading equipment on London buses will need to be changed. I am sure that my borough and all London councils will want assurances that the cost of re-equipping London buses with new readers will be met by the national purse, rather than by my council tax payers.

John Randall: I agree with my hon. Friend. Despite the intentions behind the Bill, it will be quite difficult to make its implementation fair and equitable.
	How will we in London know whether any of the cards issued outside London are fakes— assuming that there is a slight difference involving the treatment of identity—or whether they have been lost or stolen? There is quite a good system in London. However, I understand that the Department has no plans to create a national database to allow basic checks to be made on the validity of passes that are used outside their home area.
	Of course, I welcome the concession for disabled people, as I think we all do. However, we need to take a serious look at disabled facilities on public transport, especially buses, even though some advances have been made. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) who talked about bus drivers who move away quickly, which is not sympathetic to elderly and disabled people who need a little more time than others to take their seats. While it sounds great that the concession will be available, we must ensure that people have the opportunity to use it. That is true especially in rural areas, whether those people are elderly or disabled, as hon. Members have said. The buses in London are excellent. Many people use them to travel from place to place very simply—the system is wonderful. However, as one goes further out into the countryside, it becomes more difficult to find buses. While having a concession is great, people need buses so that they can use it.
	I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill and the intentions behind it. They must listen—I am sure that they will—to the variety of people who are not only putting forward suggestions, but commenting on possible problems. If the Bill is enacted properly, it will bring great benefits to many, not only in Uxbridge—we have discovered such benefits—but throughout the country. I wish the Bill well.

Peter Atkinson: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). He gave a slightly different geographical dimension to the debate, which has been dominated by north-east Members. It is good that we have had the balance of a view from London, but I will be returning to the north-east, given that I represent a large rural constituency in that region in which there are particular problems.
	The Secretary of State was quite rude about the Conservative Government and the privatisation of the bus services. He is quite young and I am quite old, and I remember the world before the privatisation of bus companies. I remember when buses were run by municipal bus undertakings, and I know perfectly well what a rotten, dreadful service the majority of those bus companies provided. I seem to remember that there were signs saying, "No change given on this bus", as if a visitor to a city would know the price of a ticket.

Peter Atkinson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I accept the point about through-ticketing for the Metro system and the bus service. I am not saying that deregulation of the bus services was entirely beneficial; it was not, and it certainly needed some adjustment. However, the principle was right. The principle was that we would eventually get a great deal of innovative new companies, vastly better buses paid for by those companies, and extremely good long-distance coach routes. We need to defend the original decision, as I believe that it was right—and now that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has left the Chamber, I feel it safe to say so.
	I join in the general welcome given to the Bill, which will reduce an enormous number of anomalies. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) rightly concentrated on the financial problems from which the Tyne and Wear area is suffering, but of course the scheme will be of great benefit to my constituents, too. About 25,000 of them live on the fringes of the Tyne and Wear area, and they could never understand why they could not travel for free, even though the buses started only about a mile down the road from them in some cases. In one sense, our gain will be Tyne and Wear's loss, because it will subsidise the change. The original system created by the Government had some ludicrous anomalies. In a village on Hadrian's wall called Heddon-on-the-Wall, the only journey that any resident could make using a concessionary fare was one of less than two miles between one authority boundary to the west of the village and the city of Newcastle boundary to the east. It was great nonsense, and I welcome the fact that we are removing those anomalies.
	I shall briefly hijack the debate to discuss the problems of providing bus and transport services in rural areas, a subject that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) covered to some extent. There is a problem in that regard. Rural people pay income tax and council tax, so when we talk about providing £250 million for the scheme and having provided £350 million, or whatever it was, for the earlier scheme, we are talking about their money. If they do not have any bus services to use, they reasonably feel somewhat aggrieved. Clearly, in all rural areas, there are problems providing public transport systems, but as soon as the Bill is enacted, we should start to consider how its provisions could be extended.
	One of the local authorities in my area, Tynedale council, used to have a taxi token system. People collected their taxi tokens, then they would often join together to share them and hire a taxi to go shopping. That was an extremely important scheme. In other areas, people rely on the postbus; that is another crucial lifeline in parts of Northumberland. I am not quite sure how that will fit into the system.
	I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to support the notion of help for a community transport system, which is a good way of proceeding with public transport in very rural areas. It is difficult to envisage a regular bus service in some remote communities: it would simply not be practical and the subsidy would be too great. A community system could work quite well. For instance, I mentioned earlier the system that serves Kielder, which has the distinction of being the most isolated village in England—and also the most tranquil, I heard the other day. The village relies on a community transport service for villagers who want to go shopping across the border in Hawick once a week. It is a valuable service because it allows them to go to a supermarket. Otherwise, they would have to travel a great distance to Hexham to do so.
	The other problem with rural services is that the buses are often in poor condition as a result of lack of use. Many of those services run off the back of the school transport system: they double up as school buses at either end of the day, but they operate on service bus routes during the day. The trouble is that they are old. They are not low-level buses, and as a consequence people who need public transport—for example, the elderly and young women, usually with children and buggies—have difficulty going up the steps of those buses. It is an unattractive prospect, and it discourages them from using the service. We therefore need to look closely at the issue of rural transport, particularly the cost of travel for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned a scheme in London. We do not have such a scheme. In fact, children going to and from school, and young people going to and from college in Northumberland, have to pay £360 a year for a bus pass unless their parents' income falls below a certain level. For families with two or three children, that is a considerable sum of money.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman misinterprets me. The reason why those buses are as they are is that the services are completely subsidised. Apart from school transport, which is a different issue, they are highly subsidised services. Because the level of subsidy is low, the companies can only operate them under the terms of the subsidy by not investing in new buses. The subsidy is too small to allow those small bus companies to buy expensive, modern buses. It is simply not feasible. Some of those buses are extremely old, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency. They run on subsidised routes, often with only one or two passengers, so there are problems that need to be addressed. I hope that when the Bill is introduced we can start to address some of the more acute problems in rural areas. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I mentioned the difference in the definitions of "coach" and "bus". To clarify the position, some of my constituents are served by a long-distance coach route that runs from Scotland. It is not clear whether they would be eligible for concessionary fares if they boarded in Northumberland or on the English side of the border.
	As I said, I welcome the Bill but I share some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about its implementation. It seems to be a nightmare of complexity to implement and, given the Government's record of implementing complicated things, I am somewhat alarmed by it. I hope that in Committee, however, at least we will have a better idea of how the detail of the Bill will be worked out.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for allowing me to intervene. The lady whom he mentioned, Mrs. Joan Grant, told me and her colleagues that many of their members work in charities right across London and travel considerable distances with their freedom pass so the pass is of value not just to themselves, but to the organisations they serve. If they are able to travel into Essex as well, other charities and organisations will benefit.

Andrew Rosindell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There are so many good reasons why extending the pass will be beneficial, and not just to the people who can travel. Allowing older people the opportunity to travel more freely will mean that they lead healthier, more active lives. They will travel more, spend more money, go to the local shops more and to different towns, go on days out and enjoy themselves. I cannot express more strongly my belief that those who have served our country, paid their taxes all their lives and many of whom have fought for this country in the last war, should be given the opportunity to lead fit, healthy, active lives and gain the advantage of freedom to travel.
	The overall real cost is not as great as some may think. As we all know, after 9.30 in the morning many buses and other means of transport are often nearly empty with only a few seats being used, so the real cost of this is pretty small. It is always important to consider the cost of such measures, but it is also important to consider the ongoing benefits. If an older person can travel and go out and enjoy themselves and lead a fit and healthy active life, that will be of benefit to the country and possibly save the health service a considerable sum of money. It will also benefit the local economy. There are many advantages. Many elderly people become depressed if they cannot travel. They stay indoors; they cannot get out and see their friends, visit their clubs or have days out to the shops, the seaside or wherever they may choose to go. Giving older people the freedom to travel in all directions can only be a huge advantage to them all, including those with disabilities.
	You have probably heard me mention this before, Madam Deputy Speaker, but administrative boundaries are often a block, not just to transport but to a range of matters. My hon. Friend will know North Ockendon in her constituency. People living there can travel into London but not down to South Ockendon, which is next door. Havering-atte-Bower in my constituency is an historic village right at the top of Romford on the boundary of Essex, and next to it is Stapleford Abbotts, but that comes under Essex county council. There is no sense to this and I am glad that at long last common sense prevails and we will see real opportunities for people to travel freely without being blocked by nonsensical local government boundaries, which, as I have said many times before, were drawn up at a time when not much thought was given to communities and other reasons for determining such boundaries.
	I endorse the words of many, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), on rural services. The constituency of Romford is not really rural, but Havering-atte-Bower is. There are a few horses up there and certainly a few dogs. There are deer in Bedford's park, which people from all around like to visit. There is a hospice, which many with sick and dying relatives come to visit, and a local village school, and the people need to travel. Unfortunately, the bus service is very poor, a fact I hope the Under-Secretary will take on board.
	We are supposedly part of Greater London, but so far the Mayor of London has not given the people of Havering-atte-Bower the option to travel freely in the way that those from other parts of London do. It is wrong that parts of outer London and rural London are neglected and people there are not given the opportunity to travel in the same way that parts of inner London are. I hope that this will be taken on board. This is a great Bill, but it is no good if older people living in a place such as Havering village are unable to get to Romford town centre because the 500 bus is so unreliable and the Sunday service has been stopped altogether.
	I chaired a meeting in Havering village on 23 February, attended by almost all its inhabitants who are up in arms at the way in which they are being treated in being denied a proper bus service on which they can rely. If someone misses the one bus in the morning to the station or it does not turn up, they will be an hour late for work. Schoolchildren who miss their bus cannot get to school on time. There is no other way of getting into the town centre when the village is 2 or 3 miles away from the train station.
	Although this is an excellent Bill, I hope that it will be followed through so that rural communities—and I have one little rural community—will not be neglected and forgotten. I hope that the Under-Secretary can raise the subject of Havering-atte-Bower with the Mayor of London, and that the option of extending the 499 bus service will be put forward so that, with a bit of luck, people in the whole of my constituency can have equal availability of bus services.
	Let me move on to the costings. We have already said that we need to ensure that the money is available so that the system works. The Bill is well intended, and we all support it, but the last thing we want is to find that the system does not function properly because the money is not available or that local councils have to make cuts in other services in order to fund it. The detail will have to be considered carefully when we meet in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will address the concerns of many hon. Members.
	That brings me back to Transport for London, because boroughs such as Havering are being striped up by TFL. We do not receive the services that other parts of London do, and we do not even have an underground in Romford. Is it fair that so much money should be paid to TFL when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster correctly pointed out, there is no proper way to assess what is being spent and the cost of all this? I am 100 per cent. for the freedom pass—I have defended it in this Chamber on many occasions, and I have fought to keep and extend it—but we need to know what these things cost so that we can assess them properly. TFL should not be allowed simply to take whatever money from the boroughs it chooses. There should be a proper account of how many people use the services and what they cost. In that way, boroughs such as Havering will not end up subsiding areas in the rest of the country, particularly in London. There has to be a fair way of funding so that everyone pays for their use of the services. The system needs a review and I hope that the Minister will consider that.
	I emphasise the importance of not forgetting disabled members of our community. I know that the freedom to travel scheme is aimed at retired people and pensioners—people who have left work and are in their latter years—but many people of all ages who are disabled also need that opportunity. We need to consider accessibility on buses and whether, in certain cases, if buses are not appropriate some of the subsidy could be used to help those people to travel by other means. Some disabled people simply cannot get on a bus, no matter what is done—it is very difficult for them. If they miss a bus or if it is inaccessible for whatever reason, they can be stranded. That is the last thing any of us would want.
	In closing, I want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said when he expressed concerns about student travel. It is important for students to travel, but only when it is for educational purposes. In London, we have a serious problem with joyriders on buses; they go on buses, travel around and use them for all kinds of activities. A lot of people who want to use the bus for genuine purposes are sometimes fearful of getting on when gangs of youngsters are using it. It is not right that we should teach young people that this is all free. If they are travelling for educational purposes or something worth while, there should be some assistance, but there should not be a complete free-for-all so that young people can just sit on buses with their mates, which might be great fun and all the rest of it but is not what buses are there for. That needs to be considered carefully before it becomes a serious problem, not only in London but elsewhere.
	Finally, I commend the Government for introducing the Bill. I look forward to its implementation and hope that many elderly and disabled people throughout the country will benefit as a result of it. I believe that they will.

Stephen Hammond: I see from the Order Paper that the debate could last till 10 o'clock, which presents us with a challenge. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I have decided to resist the temptation of creating a new record for the length of Opposition winding-up speech.
	The debate on this important Bill has been interesting and wide ranging. Mandatory bus travel concessions for England residents are provided on eligible services outside London under the Transport Act 2000 and, in Greater London, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Under the 2000 Act, concessions are provided only in the area of the travel concession authority where the person resides. The crucial point of the Bill is that it extends free bus travel so that it is available not only in the local area where the passholder is resident, but anywhere in England, including on the London bus network.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the shadow Secretary of State, stated at the outset, we welcome the principle behind the Bill. It has our wholehearted support. However, the way in which the Government enact the principle will be the subject of scrutiny, amendment and debate in Committee. We had a foretaste of that today.
	The debate has been interesting and excellent, with important contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) initially intervened about funding. Indeed, the leader of his council has already written to me about the perversities of funding that it has suffered. My hon. Friend's comment was the forerunner of several contributions on funding and cross-border issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) made interesting points about the extent to which Bracknell was advanced in smartcard technology and asked whether the Government would be in the same position in April 2008.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned the possibility of funding for the Bill taking away funding from students. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) spoke about the deficit that Essex is likely to suffer, and the Secretary of State gave assurances that he would examine that. I trust that the Under-Secretary will reiterate that reassurance.
	Being a relatively new Member, I understand that there was a tradition that Whips did not speak in debates. However, today's excellent contributions show the loss that would ensue if Whips were not allowed to speak.

Stephen Hammond: I could not disagree with that. Indeed, I reinforce the point and look forward to enjoying that care and attention during my time in the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) introduced a new socio-economic group—the twirlies—who wait outside for the 9.30 buses. He discussed the concessions to young people and some of the problems associated with that. He also forcefully raised several London issues, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) also mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford introduced us to another socio-economic group, the harpies—the Havering Association of Retired Persons.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a detailed and important contribution on the status of the buses before deregulation and the service that was experienced in his area and by many people in rural communities. He spoke passionately about the needs of rural communities today, which we need to consider in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) spoke about the current funding anomalies in Tyne and Wear, and he and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) considered bus company exploitation of the system. I am sure that they will want to reread the concessionary fares debate that we held recently in Westminster Hall. The Under-Secretary reiterated the reality as she saw it: that bus companies should be reimbursed on a no-better-off, no-worse-off basis. I pointed out that many bus operators see a different side to the story and argue that they receive neither the appropriate reimbursement for carrying concessionary passengers nor the investment needed for increased frequency of travel, which is a direct result of the schemes.

Stephen Hammond: As I said earlier, we will continue to support the principle underlying the Bill and to study it as it moves through its parliamentary passage. There are a number of practical points that remain matters of concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell outlined in some detail. We look forward to hearing the Minister's response here and in Committee. Clearly, the important issues include costs, the definition of eligible services, card technology and exactly what type of card will be introduced, cross-border services, the timing of the scheme and hot spots where considerations about funding and other related matters will require further study.
	First, on funding, the total amount of available moneys has been discussed across the House. When the new local concessionary scheme was introduced, we were told that the extra moneys provided by the Government would be enough to cover the arrangements. Not so, said the local authorities. At that time, I conducted a random survey of 15 local authorities across the country. Only one calculated that it would receive enough to cover the extra cost of the schemes, with 14 saying that they would not. Today, we are being reassured that the Government's extra moneys will cover the cost of the concessionary scheme, so I look forward to hearing much greater reassurance from the Minister about that and to finding out in detail how the £1 billion calculation was made. If we cannot get that reassurance today, we will look forward to exploring it in greater detail in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell highlighted the impact of concessionary schemes on Tyne and Wear and Christchurch and other hon. Members made similar points about other areas.
	As the Bill stands, there remain a number of issues about hot spots and honey pots and I am told that Nottingham authorities are particularly keen that the Government listen to what is said about those issues. Honey pots, as opposed to hot spots, are key destinations within regional areas that those eligible for concessionary travel are likely—either through necessity or for social reasons—to go to more often. For example, someone may start a bus journey in one area, perhaps in Gedling, and travel to Nottingham. They may get off the bus in the city and travel to Nottingham hospital, subsequently travelling back to the city centre and then back to Gedling. That involves four journeys, exemplifying the sort of honey pots that we are talking about. Can we yet be clear—and can the Government reassure us—how the money will follow the passenger? Are the Government absolutely certain that the methods of reimbursement will provide the correct amount to the correct authorities?
	As I said earlier, the principle is excellent—we need more clarity on the practice. As the Bill progresses, we will be looking for further reassurance that the Government will adequately and fully fund the concessions without placing covert extra burdens on local authorities. We need clarity on the reimbursement mechanisms and on the money following the passenger. The Government need to convince us that they will look further both into hot spot funding, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), and into the honey pots that I have just described.
	The Government will have to clarify exactly what services are eligible. Are community transport and dial-a-ride eligible: if not, why not; and if so, why do they meet the definition while other services do not? The Bill will be all the stronger if the Government introduce a clause with a commitment to review eligible services after one year of operation. For example, trams are excluded at the moment, yet many people use them in exactly the same way as they use buses. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell raised the issue of the Isle of Wight and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) intends to discuss it further with the Minister. They will be seeking to persuade her that the ferry service is used in the same way as the bus service. That is why I believe that the Bill will be all the stronger if the Government give a commitment to review eligible services after one year of operation.
	The Secretary of State spoke about one of the key drivers behind the Bill being the benefits that it would bring for social inclusion. If that is so, the Government will need to explain whether they will consider the needs of carers. Many people will be given concessionary travel but unless it is given to carers, its benefits will not be available and the arguments about the exclusion of old people that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford made will apply. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that.
	As we have heard from a number of hon. Members, we are yet to clarify exactly what type of pass will be available on the proposed date. Will it be a smartcard? Where are the Government on the development of the technology? Our ability to make accurate assessments of take-up and usage will be absolutely reliant on some form of smartcard technology. With that type of card in operation, it will be possible to ensure that the concessionary subsidy is allied to where it is actually needed, so that the subsidy follows the passenger. I look forward to the Minister enlightening us on what type of card the Government propose to introduce in April 2008 and where they are with the technology.
	A number of comments have been made about the issues in London. The Secretary of State declined to get involved in the discussion between Transport for London and the London boroughs, yet the issue is real and it needs reassessment. Before my election to the House, I was a councillor in the London borough of Merton. I remember well the 2004-05 budget round, when TfL imposed a 9 per cent. increase in fares for concessionary travel on the local council. That was all very well, but there was no consultation and the 9 per cent. increase was not available in the transport budget, so it had to be found in the social services budget. We therefore may need to re-examine in Committee the arrangements in the Bill for how TfL and the London boroughs interact. Giving TfL complete control to dictate to London boroughs is not a great example of local government and it is not working.
	In summary, there is unanimous agreement throughout the House with the principle of national concessionary fares. We look forward to considering the Bill and its consequences in detail in Committee, although not out of opposition, but to ensure that the content of the finalised Bill enjoys the same unanimous support later that its intent has enjoyed today.

Gillian Merron: I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which is important, not least because it is about giving older and disabled people throughout the country better access to bus travel. I am delighted by the wide support that the Bill is enjoying in the House, but also intrigued by the requests from those on the Opposition Benches for many extra millions of pounds to extend the scheme still further, as the Bill is in fact about geographical scope.
	Buses are at the heart of our commitment to cut congestion and pollution. Because they are at the heart of every community—taking people to work, to the shops and to see friends and family around the corner and throughout the country—buses are for me, in short, a social justice issue. That is why the Government's extension of concessionary fares coverage is so important. Eleven million older and disabled people can already enjoy free local off-peak travel, but not everyone can get to where they want or to see who they want just within their communities. Grandchildren might live 30 miles away or more and hospitals can be just over the local authority boundary, as we have heard in examples today.
	The Government have listened. By removing the issue of local authority boundaries, which are indeed an artificial barrier to free bus travel, we are extending freedom and extending people's horizons. We will continue to work closely with a wide range of stakeholders—local government, bus operators and groups representing older and disabled people—to achieve that important improvement.
	I shall now turn to the specific issues raised by hon. Members. The definition of a bus, an open-top bus and a coach was the subject of a flurry of questions. If I may enlighten the House, we use the term "public service vehicle", which is defined in other legislation, and I would be happy to supply the references. Earlier, we were talking about ladies and gentlemen of a certain age, but in this case we are talking about vehicles of a certain size—buses and minibuses that carry passengers for fares.
	The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was particularly interested in the issue of coaches, although the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) also raised the issue. Coaches will be obliged to provide the national concession where they provide local services as part of their routes—where sections of their routes have stops less than 15 miles apart and are sufficiently accessible to members of the public. Those local services will be registered as such, and do not include long inter-urban journeys with no local bus stops or services marketed exclusively for tourists.

Gillian Merron: That has not been the experience to date, and I am sure that Members will raise any examples.
	Considerable interest has also been expressed in the no-better, no-worse off reimbursement arrangements for operators. The objective is set out in the Travel Concession Schemes Regulations 1986. Under the Transport Act 2000, which will be amended by the Bill, authorities will reimburse the operator for providing the concessions, as is the case at present. Importantly, there is full reimbursement for reasonably incurred loss arising directly from the provision of concessions. In relation to bus operators putting up fares, it is worth reminding ourselves that the majority of bus passengers are not in receipt of concessionary fares, so bus operators must take account of the impact on fare-paying passengers.

Kevan Jones: May I point out one anomaly? Currently, a bus company gets reimbursed for providing concessionary fares on a route. However, if it subsequently withdraws that route, and another operator takes it over, the concessionary fare reimbursement stays with the original company for, I understand, 12 months. Should not we examine whether that can be transferred to other operators when a company withdraws a route?

Gillian Merron: I assure my hon. Friend that all those matters are under discussion with the interested parties. Operators do not receive the full fare charged, about which some hon. Members have been concerned, but an average fare, which takes into account the whole range of tickets, including discounted tickets.
	The other big area of debate today has been on technology and smartcards. I confirm to the House that we are doing everything possible to assist local authorities in their delivery, and will continue to provide support and advice beyond April 2008. The Government support entirely the faster and wider spread of smart ticketing. The Department has already gone a long way to promote that. But the introduction of full smart ticketing with bus-based card readers, which many Members have mentioned, takes time. It would be neither practicable nor sensible to ask local authorities to implement that for April 2008.
	In the longer term, however, smartcards can reduce fraud and help to secure better data for reimbursement calculations. We are having discussions with all the interested groups, and if the smartcard format is chosen, the Government would look to assist in local authority procurement. Through the negotiation of framework agreements, that would be of great assistance to local authorities up and down the country. We remain committed to funding any new burdens imposed on local authorities. We have said that we expect to fund reasonable new cost burdens arising from the issuing of passes.
	Let me clarify what will happen in April 2008. Subject to consultation, concessionaires will have a credit-card-sized photo-pass with a national logo so that it can be recognised throughout the country, and locally customised so that eligibility for local concessions beyond the national scheme can also be noted. I can reassure London Members that the freedom pass will have a national sticker as a temporary measure, again because it is not practical or cost-effective to introduce a national pass in time for April 2008.

Kevan Jones: It is not as though millions of pounds will be poured into the Go Ahead Northerns of this world, but will small operators operating the scheme be helped to obtain equipment that will accept the new cards?

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is extraordinarily difficult to pinpoint that. However, we are talking about "in the order of" certain sums. One of the difficulties in calling for extensions to the current scheme—as some Members do, particularly on the Opposition Benches—is that we do not know precisely what will be the extent of take-up. Therefore, our estimates are conservative—with a small "c"—and based on what we anticipate will be the case. We also get information through discussions with the relevant provider. Clearly, the figure to which my hon. Friend refers can be merely an estimate.

Paul Rowen: The Liberal Democrats have asked for scheme extensions in cases where there is not a bus service in operation, and in respect of community transport services or other such services and where journeys are in part covered by a bus service—a ferry or tram service might do that. That could easily be done by extending the definition of what is a public service vehicle and registering particular community transport services as public services.

Gillian Merron: That is why the Bill allows local provision to be made where it meets local circumstances. However, I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman and others that we are talking about a funding commitment of many millions of pounds. Opposition parties might wish to consider whether they would be prepared to back up what they are asking for.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell suggested that smart ticketing was in place in Wales and Scotland. For clarity, let me confirm that while some pilots are in place in Wales, full smart ticketing is some years off, and in Scotland smart ticketing is operative only in Shetland and full roll-out is also some years off. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that some 45 appeals from last year had not been resolved. That is not the case. All appeals from the last financial year have been resolved.
	The hon. Gentleman and other Members inquired about the £1 billion every year that this Government will be putting into concessionary fares. I am happy to supply further information, but for the sake of clarity let me say today that there will be £250 million of new money to extend to national provision in 2008. There is also a sum in the order of £420 million of new money for 2006 for the change from half-fare to free travel within local authority areas, and there is an estimated £400 million of funding to be put into the rate support grant for the original half-fare statutory concessions. By any assessment, that is a considerable commitment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) asked about the distribution of funding of the national concession to hot spots. It is in the interests of all of us to ensure that funding reflects usage. We are confident that the overall level of funding will be sufficient, and our overriding principle is that the extra £250 million will be directed to where the extra costs fall, to recognise such hot spots as far as we can. Various options are being discussed with the concessionary fares working group, which includes representatives from all tiers of local government as well as operators.
	We will consult widely on the formula for distribution, and I can assure the hon. Member for Rochdale that the data sources examined will include, for example, tourist beds, retail floor space and bus patronage. I can also assure the House that it is our policy to ensure that the net additional costs and new burdens placed on local authorities will be fully funded. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge that this Bill should be cause for celebration. I do understand the situation in Tyne and Wear, and I know that the Department for Communities and Local Government continues to talk to concerned local authorities.
	We are working closely with local authorities via the concessionary fares working group, which includes representatives from Nexus and other passenger transport executives. I met Nexus representatives on my visit to Newcastle to explore the best way of distributing additional funding. In fact, officials were in Newcastle only last week to discuss these issues with local authority officers and operators in the north-east.

Gillian Merron: I want to make a bit more progress. Reference has been made to the Isles of Scilly, which is an issue that excites a lot of interest. It is probably worth pointing out now that residents of the Isles of Scilly are of course entitled to the national concession on the mainland, so there will be a need to administer passes for those residents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge asked why the local authority where the journey starts has to pay. The answer is that that is the only practical solution before us for reimbursing operators; otherwise, places such as London would have to cross-charge hundreds of other local authorities across England. We are seeking to provide a workable, practical and easily understandable scheme.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale requested an extension—he was not alone in that—of the definition of "disabled", and the extension of free travel to companions of disabled travellers. That is another spending commitment. It would cost about an extra £10 million a year to extend free travel to companions of disabled travellers, and some £50 million to extend it to people with mental impairment. Again, however, it is not just a question of cost but of defining eligibility and managing bus services' ability to respond.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who represents his constituents so well on the issue of buses, asked about the administration of the scheme. There will be no change to who administers the scheme for 2008; again, our priority is to get it up and running properly. However, we are looking at who is best placed to carry out such functions in the medium term, and we will consult widely on that issue.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised a number of issues, including one that was raised earlier: those who have disabilities, and the ability of bus drivers to be understanding. Although I accept that training is important, along with increased accessibility—some 50 per cent. of buses are now accessible to people with disabilities—it is important that we put on the record our thanks not just to the bus drivers but to the staff who work behind the scenes: the cleaners, mechanics, trainers, administration staff and managers who keep bus services running.
	On the issue of photographs on passes, we need a single national standard, including for London. The passes will need photographs because they will be used in areas that do not yet have a smartcard system and will need to be shown to drivers. We are also all concerned about fraud and, as the concession has become more generous, so it becomes more valuable. That is why we are seeking to encourage smart ticketing in the longer term.
	Several hon. Members raised the issue of young people, and that is a further funding commitment from Opposition Members. If the concessionary fares scheme were extended to young people aged five to 18, the Department conservatively estimates that it would cost more than £500 million a year. There are no plans to make concessionary travel a statutory entitlement for young people, but local authorities are free to do so if they wish.

Gillian Merron: I am just coming to the end of my remarks.
	Buses are getting better. They are becoming more accessible for elderly and disabled passengers than ever before. There are more buses on the roads, and they are getting newer. The average age has come down by more than 20 per cent. over the last 10 years. Bus stops are better lit, and there is more and better information.
	As we take forward the "Putting Passengers First" proposals in the forthcoming draft Local Transport Bill—I know that many hon. Members will welcome that—we will see more improvements over the next few years, making the bus the first choice, not the last resort. We want more people to enjoy bus travel, especially those for whom it is more than a convenience, it is a lifeline.
	For the first time, the Government via this Bill will guarantee that no older or disabled person in England need be prevented from travelling by bus by cost alone. It is a major step forward for some of the most vulnerable in our society, not just in transport provision, but in social inclusion. It will make a real difference to millions of people. My hon. Friends and I are proud of this Labour Government's commitment to improving the lot of bus passengers, to bringing more people on to buses and to our achievements on concessionary travel. I know that this important Bill will be welcomed by people up and down the country. The Opposition support this Bill, but this Labour Government have introduced it and are delivering for 11 million over-60s and disabled people. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ben Chapman: I am delighted to have secured this debate on transparency and competition in charging by ticket agents. As a nation, we spend more than £1.5 billion a year on advance ticket sales—a figure that has risen by more than 150 per cent. since 1999—for pop and rock concerts, west end theatre or shows, opera, stand-up comedy and sporting events. Of that huge sum, more than a third was spent with ticket agents.
	Going to such events has become an increasingly popular leisure activity. The number of these events has increased. People have more disposable income and are able to purchase tickets easily via the internet. In most other markets, that demand would be met by greater supply, but in respect of pop concerts and, to a lesser extent, other top-end productions, it puts not only the acts but the ticket agents—through exclusive deals—in a powerful position. For example, Kylie Minogue's come-back concert sold out in six minutes; if there had been as many tickets as punters willing to pay upwards of £50, several Wembley stadiums could have been filled.
	Given the massive discrepancy between supply and demand, it is paramount that we keep a careful check on those who—quite properly—seek to make commercial gain in that market. However, that is quite separate from the legitimate debate about the increase in size of the secondary market in the resale of tickets. I am concerned only with the primary market and I shall argue that, although ticket agents perform a perfectly useful role, we need to do much more to ensure that their pricing is transparent and fair, so that the punter can see exactly how much he or she will pay. In addition, given the sometimes high stakes involved, we should question whether the relationship between promoters and agents should not be further scrutinised.
	These days, it may be inevitable that people who decide to see a show or concert are charged at least one fee, if not two, on top of the ticket's face value. However, although it may be inevitable it is not always expected. People quite legitimately budget on the basis of an advertised price. One might baulk at a £55 ticket for the Monty Python musical "Spamalot" but accept the fact that the show is obviously popular. What might cause more irritation would be to find out later in the transaction that a surcharge of £15 was to be added by the agents, as I understand has occurred. Although that may be a top-end example it is not uncommon to find companies charging in the region of £5 on top of the face value for the privilege of buying a ticket from a particular agency.
	Information is power, however. For many events, it becomes apparent only late in the transaction—crucially, perhaps after the decision to purchase—that there are to be added fees. As the Office of Fair Trading 2005 report, "Ticket agents in the UK" recommended, information should be provided on advertisements to indicate, if not to specify, the price range of the tickets to be sold, as well as the fact that there will be a booking fee. Welcome guidance issued by the Committee of Advertising Practice before the OFT report was published required advertisers not to mislead, for example by quoting only the lowest price or by not indicating clearly that a booking fee applies. However, that had the unintended consequence that, rather than display more information, advertisers simply removed it altogether—as they were perfectly entitled to do under the guidelines. I appreciate that booking fees vary between agents, which is a good reason to shop around, but if agents are primarily or completely in charge of selling tickets on behalf of the promoters of the concert or show, it is only right that the consumer should be fully aware that they will take their cut and, furthermore, that the amount of that cut is known at an early stage.
	The names given to fees are often confusing and sometimes downright misleading. Sometimes they are referred to as booking fees; at other times as service charges, processing fees or administration fees. Most of those descriptions give the impression that the fee is incurred to meet an expense involved in the processing of the transaction, but in reality it is simply how the agent makes their money. Why cannot that be made clear? If it is not made clear, the situation is similar to that for banks—albeit on a lesser scale—where the charges generally bear no relation to the actual costs incurred and are merely a way of making money. I acknowledge that ticket agencies are legitimate companies operating as useful intermediaries between promoters and customers, but we should be able to demand some honesty about their role. The same is true about their use of the phrase "post and packaging", which can cost very much more than the price of a first-class stamp.
	A corollary of the assumption implicit in labelling such charges administration fees, or whatever they may be called, is that the marginal cost of administering extra tickets for the same recipient should be small—in fact, so small as to be non-existent—but that is not the case. In the vast majority of instances, the same fee applies to each ticket, whether the purchase is of one or 100. Again, we come back to the misleading impression that fees are merely expenses being passed on to the customer.
	These days, it is becoming harder and harder to buy directly from a box office, and having agreements in place and clear information on the options is rare. To take one example, Ticketmaster operates a "box office" service on behalf of a number of venues, in addition to those owned by Clear Channel, including, for example, the Manchester Evening News arena, the Metro Radio arena in Newcastle and the Brighton centre. Tickets are usually still available directly from those venues, but that fact is not advertised prominently on venues' websites and the impression given is very much that using the agent is the sole means of obtaining tickets.
	When people phone the automated inquiries and booking line for the MEN arena, no mention is made of the fact that tickets can be purchased directly, without incurring a fee. Tickets to see Ricky Gervais, for example, have a face value of £25, but then there is a £4.95 booking fee per ticket, plus £2 for postage. That latter charge applies even when people pick up tickets at the box office. That means that a party of four would pay nearly £22 in additional charges, or a mark-up of 20 per cent., for the privilege.
	I do not seek to single out Ticketmaster in particular. When judged against the rest of the industry, it is as good or as bad as many others at providing information. However, given the money to be made, it is not surprising that its results for this quarter, which were announced only last week, were so healthy. The website of its parent company, IAC, boasts of Ticketmaster's revenue worldwide jumping 44 per cent.
	"due primarily to increased revenue in the United Kingdom and Canada".
	Tellingly, it adds that there was a 10 per cent. higher than average revenue per ticket. One can speculate on the causes of that, but it certainly does not seem to illustrate any downward pressure on margins.
	Although the Office of Fair Trading found no evidence of a lack of competition in the ticket agents market, it did uncover some potentially distorting arrangements between promoters and agents: for example, preferential contract rights in exchange for access to a proportion of the tickets allocated. That may take the form of some of the revenue from the sale of the tickets by agents being returned to the promoter, who may then pass it on to the artist or to his or her agent. Thus, as the OFT found, it is often directly in the interests of the promoter for additional fees to be charged. The OFT talks of competition operating at a level not visible to the customer: between agents competing to attract promoters by offering financial inducements in the form of higher fees. Surely that is not right. It could even sometimes be called a bung. In some circumstances, if an allocation of tickets is bought up completely by one agent, that may be regarded as a closed shop.
	It is not that these arrangements always necessarily disadvantage the consumer. The OFT points out—I think rather naively—that sources of income from booking fees
	"can mean that face value ticket prices are lower than they would be otherwise."
	That may or may not be the case, but would it not be better to have a standard, transparent system so that everyone knows where they are? Most would agree that, given the unprecedented demand for tickets to rock and pop concerts, and perhaps to a lesser degree to west end shows, once an agency secures a large ticket allocation, in effect it has a licence to print money.
	It is not all doom and gloom. Plenty of theatres operate without the need for ticket agents and the associated hefty booking fees. As I am a Merseyside MP, I instance Liverpool's Everyman and Playhouse theatres, as well as the Liverpool Philharmonic, which charge a fee only for internet transactions. Transactions made in person or by phone are free. In the first two examples, the fee is a flat rate, regardless of the number of tickets involved. As Liverpool is the European capital of culture next year, it might be fitting if, for example, the city's new Kings Waterfront arena, which will no doubt host many big events, could take a lead which other similarly big venues may follow by keeping booking fees to a minimum or at least ensuring that the option to buy directly is fully advertised and that transparency rules.
	Ticket agents perform a useful role for people who have neither the time nor the inclination to buy directly from the venue, but many people resent charges being levied, especially when they pick up the tickets from the venue on the night. There are things that we should be doing to ensure greater transparency and competition. First, we should work to encourage venues and promoters to agree guidelines under which a proportion of tickets for each event would always be available directly, without fees applying, with that fact advertised prominently. That is less of a problem with west end shows than it is with pop concerts, but tickets for some of the more popular shows are available only through agents.
	Secondly, we need clear advertising of fees, so that people know what they are paying, or what they are likely to pay, both when they see the event advertised initially and when they inquire further. Thirdly, the industry should agree a standard wording for fees, so that it is made clear that people are paying not merely the expenses incurred but the profit of the intermediary. Fourthly, we should scrutinise more closely the relationship between promoters or venues and agents to ensure that there is no question of collusion either to inflate booking fees or to exclude non-agency sales from the equation. On all those aspects, it might be timely for the OFT to look again at its 2005 report and examine this important issue in depth.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) on securing a debate on an important subject that is of lively and continuing interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to many of our constituents. I should declare a lively personal interest: I am an avid theatre-goer and opera-goer, and the mother of an aspiring theatre director. We all want the situation to be right.
	I am, of course, aware that consumers are often concerned by what they feel are very high fees charged by ticket agents. Most consumers accept that taking advantage of the benefit of using a ticket agent will involve some extra cost, but many of us dislike paying the fees charged by primary ticket agents and others on top of the face value of a ticket. Many consumers think that the charges are too high, and trading standards services and the Office of Fair Trading report that consumers have concerns about slowness of transactions and the non-delivery of pre-paid tickets.
	As my hon. Friend said, these issues were explored in the OFT's 2005 report on ticket agents, which examined the services provided to consumers, and I want to talk about the work that the OFT is undertaking. Collectively, ticket sales in the UK are now a very large market. These figures are somewhat out of date, but in 2003 the estimated total value of advance tickets sales in the UK was about £1.4 billion, of which about £580 million came from sales through primary ticket agents—those in which my hon. Friend has the most interest—which have agreements with the promoters of events. Again, although the figure may be a little conservative, the OFT estimates that the business between 1999 and 2003 grew by about 150 per cent. That increase resulted in part from more events being held—we all welcome that—but we also believe that it was partly due to consumer demand for greater convenience when booking a ticket, and the increased use that we all make of the internet to buy tickets.
	Tickets sold through primary ticket agencies will usually include the face-value price, as printed on the ticket itself, a booking fee charged for each ticket and the additional processing fee for the transaction, which relates to the printing, postal charges and other administrative costs involved. Event promoters negotiate with artists' agents for the number of appearances, and they determine the face value of tickets and the allocation and distribution of tickets between the venue box office and ticket agencies. Artists and their agents may also require a share of available tickets, which they may distribute as they see fit.
	As we all know, the demand for tickets for some events may turn out to be greater than expected. That excess demand provides secondary agents with an opportunity to resell tickets at an even higher price to those who really want to attend and who are prepared to pay a premium to get the tickets.
	As my hon. Friend said, whatever the source of the tickets, one of the main concerns is that consumers need to be properly and clearly informed about all charges so that they can make an informed choice. Consumer law on price indications imposes a requirement on all traders to give information on pricing clearly to consumers, so that they can compare prices in different outlets and make informed choices about what is best value for money. Although it is for the consumer to decide whether to buy a ticket that is being resold, it is important to ensure that they have clear information on which to base that choice. There are specific legal requirements on ticket agents that resell tickets to provide consumers with the price and any other details that appear on the ticket, such as the location of the event or the seat number. That is to ensure that potential buyers have the relevant details before they buy.
	Trading standards services have taken enforcement action against a number of ticket agents in cases in which breaches of the legislation have been identified as causing collective harm to consumers. The OFT will, of course, continue to work with trading standards to ensure that all ticket sellers comply with the relevant consumer protection legislation, and it will take enforcement action when it believes it to be necessary. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the current regulations will be replaced as part of the implementation of the unfair commercial practices directive, which we are transposing into UK legislation. We expect the regulations to come into force in April 2008, and they will be a major piece of legislation that will ban unfair marketing and selling practices in the ticket market. They will require all ticket traders to provide consumers with the material information that they need to make an informed purchasing decision.
	There are also understandable concerns surrounding bogus ticket agents advertising fake entertainment events or tickets that they do not have. Those are plain and simple frauds, and they too can be prosecuted when the victims bring the evidence to the attention of trading standards officers. Another concern to consumers is the use of unfair terms in ticket agencies' standard terms and conditions. The law on business to consumer contracts requires businesses not to use unfair terms in their contracts.
	Both the OFT and trading standards services act in a number of ways to try to improve the terms on consumer contracts. They may do so through campaigns to raise consumers' awareness of their rights, through guidance that is published and by taking enforcement action to prevent the use of unfair terms in a contract. In 2003, the OFT published guidance on unfair terms in consumer entertainment contracts to ensure that the standard terms used in the contracts and in the ticket sector are fair. Work continues on identifying and tackling ticket sellers who do not comply with the law.
	As my hon. Friend has said, the OFT has reported on the ticket agents market. The study concluded that consumers need better information about tickets to enable them to shop around for the best deal, but it also concluded that some ticket agents' standard terms may contain terms that the OFT would generally consider potentially unfair. The report noted that event promoters and primary agents can impose conditions on the sale of their tickets and can invoke laws, such as those to do with breach of contract, to prevent the resale of tickets. The OFT is currently working with the ticket agency industry's representative bodies, such as the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers, with the aim of producing fair model terms and conditions that could be used by all members. That is a significant advance in the market.
	My hon. Friend expressed concern about the level of competition in the ticketing industry which, as he knows, was an issue considered by the OFT, as the promotion of competition and the enforcement of competition law are central to its functions. Its report considered whether there is a lack of competition that could result in disproportionately higher fees being applied than would otherwise be the case. It looked, in particular, at the effect of the vertical agreements between event promoters and primary ticket agents. However, as he knows, the report did not find any evidence that those agreements hinder competition. The OFT concluded that competition between rival ticket agents to secure agreements with promoters tended to enable lower costs to be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices.
	As I mentioned, however, the OFT has made recommendations to improve information for consumers. Most consumers tend to make an initial decision on whether or not to go to an event on seeing an advertisement, but full information on charges is often only available within the transaction itself. It is very often the only way to obtain accurate price information without contacting the ticket seller. That can make it much harder for consumers to opt out of the purchasing transaction, especially if they think that the event that they want to attend is likely to sell out quickly. It is an essential part of consumer protection that advertisements do not mislead consumers. It is important that they inform people.
	The OFT is looking at the rules governing event entertainment advertising. It found that the code of non-broadcasting advertising practice, written and enforced by the industry committee of advertising practice and independently administered by the Advertising Standards Authority, is less than satisfactory, as non-broadcast advertising tends not to carry price information. The report therefore recommended that the guidance on event advertising be reviewed and amended to include, among other things, the requirement that advertisers display the face value of the ticket, while indicating where additional fees may apply and whether they could vary depending on the sales channel and the ticket seller used. It recommended, too, that event organisers follow up any amended guidance to provide consumers with the fullest possible information when advertising events.
	In general, the OFT study found that where consumer protection regulation is applied, it appears to be working well and that most consumers express high levels of satisfaction with the ticket-buying process. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are areas for improvement, and the Government fully support the OFT's initiatives to secure these improvements. My hon. Friend suggested a number of measures to make the market in tickets more transparent and to make it work better for consumers which, broadly speaking, fall within the scope of the OFT report.
	As regards clearer advertising, the OFT recommended that the guidance be amended. I will pass on to the OFT the full text of my hon. Friend's speech so that in further discussions it can take account of what he has said. I will ask, too, for its views on the other proposals that he has made, as they are closely related. I will write to him with details of those views. The OFT will certainly wish to have the opportunity to consider his proposals, discuss them with interested parties and, if appropriate, make further recommendations on the market.
	In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for raising these important issues and for giving me the opportunity to explain the protections that already exist for consumers and the work that we have in hand to offer better transparency and more information. I will ask the OFT for its views on his suggestions. Like him, we want consumers to be informed and empowered in the marketplace. We will therefore continue to work closely with the OFT and other authorities to achieve that shared objective.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Seven o'clock.